RE: Last Call: Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label to Proposed Standard

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

Thanks Steve for reacting. I think I will try to stay out of this.
The duplicate IPR was noted before and I have fixed it.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:smb@research.att.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 8 april 2003 15:46
> To: Robert Elz
> Cc: iesg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Last Call: Textual Conventions for IPv6 Flow Label to
> Proposed Standard 
> 
> 
> In message <29412.1049551327@munnari.OZ.AU>, Robert Elz writes:
> >I have been told in the past, that it is unacceptable for I-Ds
> >intended to be published to contain contradictory statements.
> >
> >This one does.
> >
> >It says (twice, for reasons I won't begin to guess at)
> >
> >   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
> >   intellectual property or other rights that might be claimed to
> >
> >and also says
> >
> >Full Copyright Statement
> >
> >   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2003). All Rights Reserved.
> >
> >   This document and translations of it may be copied and 
> furnished to
> >   others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise 
> explain it
> >
> >which is certainly taking a position with respect to the validity and
> >scope of at least one aspect of the intellectual property 
> related to the
> >document.
> >
> 
> "send text".  You clearly know what was intended -- ISOC has its own 
> copyright, but we're not taking a position on an other claims, most 
> notably patent claims.  What wording do you suggest?  (Changing those 
> policies is almost certainly not going to happen now, since 
> the ipr wg 
> seems to be reaching consensus against any significant changes at the 
> moment.)
> 
> 
> 		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
> 		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of 
> "Firewalls" book)
> 
>